Editorial
America's Shame in Montreal

Published: December 13, 2005
The best that can be said of the recently concluded meeting on climate change in Montreal is that the countries that care about global warming did not allow the United States delegation to blow the whole conference to smithereens. Washington was intent on making sure that the conferees required no more of the United States than what it is already doing to restrain greenhouse gas emissions, which amounts to virtually nothing.

At least the Americans' shameful foot-dragging did not bring the entire process to a complete halt, and for this the other industrialized countries, chiefly Britain and Canada, deserve considerable praise. It cannot be easy for America's competitors to move forward with costly steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while the United States refuses to carry its share of the load. Nevertheless, the Europeans and other signatories to the 1997 treaty limiting greenhouse gas emissions - a treaty the Bush administration has rejected - promised to work toward new and more ambitious targets and timetables when the agreement lapses in 2012.

For its part, the Bush administration deserves only censure. No one expected a miraculous conversion. But given the steadily mounting evidence of the present and potential consequences of climate change - disappearing glaciers, melting Arctic ice caps, dying coral reefs, threatened coastlines, increasingly violent hurricanes - one would surely have expected America's negotiators to arrive in Montreal willing to discuss alternatives.

They did not. Instead, the principal negotiators, Paula Dobriansky and Harlan Watson, continued to tout the benefits of an approach that combines voluntary reductions by individual companies with further research into "breakthrough" technologies.

That will not work. While a few companies may decide to proceed on their own, the private sector as a whole will neither create new technologies nor broadly deploy them unless all countries are required to do their share under a regime that combines agreed-upon targets with strong financial incentives for reaching them. To believe that companies will spend heavily to reduce emissions while their competitors are not doing the same is to believe in the tooth fairy.

The Europeans are finding solace in the fact that the Americans - after much kicking and screaming, and after public rebukes by Canada's prime minister and a surprise visitor named Bill Clinton - finally agreed to join informal "nonbinding" discussions that will try to entice developing countries like China and India into the process. It's certainly true that without the developing nations on board, any effort to keep greenhouses gases at manageable levels will be for naught. China, for example, is building coal-fired power plants at a rapid clip and is expected to overtake the United States as the biggest producer of greenhouse gases in 20 years.

But talk is cheap, and nonbinding talk is even cheaper. And talk alone will not get the developing world into the game. Why should India and China make major sacrifices while the United States, in effect, gets a free ride? The battle against global warming will never be won unless America joins it, urgently and enthusiastically. Our grandchildren will look back with anger and astonishment if we fail to do so.

Climate Change: U.S. and the World (7 Letters)

Published: December 15, 2005
To the Editor:

"America's Shame in Montreal" (editorial, Dec. 13) doesn't point out that America wants to have it as though we were the only people on the planet and as though we were still a frontier nation.

During our long frontier adolescence, a man or a woman was free to cut down trees, plow the land, hunt bear, reroute rivers and fill the skies with smoke. This was possible because there were many fewer people doing it.

The rules of behavior, whether personal or corporate, that are perfectly acceptable for a small group of humans on a vast continent grow less and less satisfactory when we are approaching 300 million and a lot of the land, air, water and other natural resources have been occupied or depleted.

As Americans, we need to open our eyes to the facts of the effect of our behavior on others and on our world, before we foul the only nest we have.

Christina Forbes
Alexandria, Va., Dec. 13, 2005

•

To the Editor:

You ask rhetorically, "Why should India and China make major sacrifices while the United States, in effect, gets a free ride?"

But turn that question around: "Why should the United States make major sacrifices while China and India get a free ride?" That provides an equally adequate justification for the United States not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Andrew Brett
Princeton, N.J., Dec. 13, 2005

•

To the Editor:

Finally, an editorial has noted a fact of extreme importance when discussing the Kyoto Protocol, heretofore ignored so far as I can recall.

"America's Shame in Montreal"(editorial, Dec. 13), while denouncing the United States, also states: "It's certainly true that without the developing nations on board, any effort to keep greenhouse gases at manageable levels will be for naught. China, for example, is building coal-fired power plants at a rapid clip and is expected to overtake the United States as the biggest producer of greenhouse gases in 20 years."

China is now the second-largest user of fossil fuel, having replaced Japan in that category. A Dec. 5 front-page article reported that "India's middle class has grown to an estimated 250 million in the past decade" and that "India has become one of the world's fastest-growing car markets."

The countries that have signed the Kyoto treaty do not want to irritate China and India because of the tremendous selling opportunities those two countries provide, reminding one of Lenin's comment, "The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."

If China and India were to join the Kyoto Protocol, the United States would be without a legitimate argument in defense of its current position opposing mandatory emission reductions.

Edward I. Koch
New York, Dec. 13, 2005

•

To the Editor:

The only reason we engage in "shameful foot-dragging" is to protect the oil companies.

The steps required to restrain greenhouse gas emissions are not costly. On the contrary, they are good for the economy and our health.

The technology to make electricity from solar, wind and hydroelectric projects already exists. There is a new process that can make cellulosic ethanol economically from agricultural waste and even old newspapers. Ethanol, as with all biomass fuels, doesn't contribute to global warming.

We cannot wait for all the oil to be used up before we produce alternative fuels, because we may pass the point when global warming becomes unstoppable.

Daniel Max
New York, Dec. 13, 2005

•

To the Editor:

Obviously, America's formal participation in global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is essential for the Kyoto treaty to succeed. But heaping praise on Canada's prime minister for publicly rebuking the United States for its "shameful foot-dragging" seems to be misplaced when, in reality, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have increased some 24 percent since 1990.

Prime Minister Paul Martin tried to cash in on the Canadian electorate's perceived anti-Americanism by going out of his way to use former President Bill Clinton at the Montreal meeting as a political prop to demonstrate his toughness on the current White House for failing to support the Kyoto accord. This said more about the political opportunism of Mr. Martin than it did about the global conscience of the United States.

While an embarrassed Mr. Clinton proved a class act, sadly it made Canada and an electioneering Canadian prime minister look cheap before a world audience.

E. W. Bopp
Tsawwassen, British Columbia
Dec. 13, 2005

•

To the Editor:

You write in your Dec. 13 editorial about the meeting on climate change in Montreal that Britain and Canada "deserve considerable praise," but that "the Bush administration deserves only censure."

The United States indeed has yet to step up as a leader in the fight against climate change, but holding up Canada and Britain as role models is ridiculous.

Canada has ratified the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, but Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have increased 24 percent over its levels in 1990, even though Canada has committed itself to reducing its greenhouse gas production by 6 percent from 1990 levels by 2012. Canada's plans to meet its Kyoto goals are widely expected to fail.

The situation in Britain is more promising, but only because Britain has closed many of its coal mines after realizing losses, and so has decreased carbon dioxide production without corresponding consumption decreases.

Jack Larkin
Oberlin, Ohio, Dec. 13, 2005

•

To the Editor:

A leader should possess both the judgment to identify critical problems and the skill to deal with them effectively. President Bush has consistently exhibited neither of these essential attributes.

Among the various critical issues confronting our nation, the one to which he has devoted his greatest attention and expended most of his political capital has been the invasion of Iraq.

In stark contrast, the Bush administration has willfully played down the growing threat posed by global warming. Here we have a looming crisis that could affect the entire world, and America has totally abdicated any leadership role.

We can only hope that future presidents will be able to mitigate the damage resulting from the failures of leadership of our current one.

Russ Weiss
Princeton, N.J., Dec. 13, 2005

And now Canada has voted in the Government that will doom the whole thing.

Shame on those Canadians, how dare they depose a corrupt bunch of liberals when the future of the whole world is at stake?

Corruption and Liberalism.

Key factors to all the supporters of the Kyoto Jokeocol.

Well done Canada!

Of course, have you been following the antics of all the gay liberals in the UK??????

Way out of the realm of "normal" gayness! Hmmm, maybe not.

All the other countries on the world have already doen the Kyoko ptotocol and the world is much better because of it again.

It is time to vote the UN in as the world government and force everyone to make the changes to save the earth.